Forum Post on Mary: Mother of God
Mary: Mother of God (forum post)

Matthew 4:2 "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered."

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly hungered
3. Then God truly hungered

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and experienced true hunger through that flesh.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

John 4:6 "Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well"

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly wearied
3. Then God truly wearied

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and experienced true weariness through that flesh.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

John 19:28 "I thirst."

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly thirsted
3. Then God truly thirsted

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and experienced true thirst through that flesh.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Hebrews 13:12 "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly suffered
3. Then God truly suffered

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and experienced true suffering through that flesh.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly."

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly died
3. Then God truly died

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and experienced true death through that flesh.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

John 2:1 KJV " and the mother of Jesus was there"

1. If Jesus is truly God
2. And if Jesus truly was born of His mother
3. Then God truly has a mother

(The incarnation makes this incredible thing possible. God acquired flesh, and became one of our family relatives through that flesh.) God made Mary into His mother. Mary did for her son what every other mother does for her son. She meets every credible criterion for being the mother of her child that every other mother does for her child.

One counter-argument from dissenter sects is that Mary is merely the mother of God's "human form". But so what?

Then Sarah is truly the mother of Isaac precisely because she is the mother of the "human form" of Isaac. Then Rebekka is truly the mother of Jacob precisely because she is the mother of the "human form" of Jacob. Then Rachel is truly the mother of Joseph precisely because she is the mother of the "human form" of Joseph. Then Elisabeth is truly the mother of John the Baptist precisely because she is the mother of the "human form" of the Baptist. Then Mary is truly the mother of God precisely because she is the mother of the "human form" of God.

It is all completely consistent, if you accept that in the incarnation of Christ, God truly acquired a human form and truly became a member of the family of Adam. In the incarnation of Christ, God became one of our family so as to defeat death on-behalf-of/for-the-benefit-of all His relatives.

There is no credible criterion for motherhood that Mary does not meet with respect to her son, a person who is God. Mary did what every other mother does for her son.

Another counter-argument from dissenter sect is that Mary ought to have "produced" more than a "human form" in order to truly be the mother of God. That is another sidestep.

***What do mother's "produce" for their sons in addition to "producing" their "human form" ? ***

Sarah produced neither Isaac's soul, nor his spirit, nor his masculinity. Yet Sarah is still truly the mother of her son, who is Isaac. Sarah is also the mother of a male person, without having any masculinity of her own!

Rebekka produced neither Jacob's soul, nor his spirit, nor his masculinity. Yet Rebekka is still truly the mother of her son, who is Jacob. Rebekka is also the mother of a male person, without having any masculinity of her own!

Rachel produced neither Joseph's soul, nor his spirit, nor his masculinity. Yet Rachel is still truly the mother of her son, who is Joseph. Rachel is also the mother of a male person, without having any masculinity of her own!

Elisabeth produced neither John the Baptist's soul, nor his spirit, nor his masculinity. Yet Elisabeth is still truly the mother of her son, who is John the Baptist. Elisabeth is also the mother of a male person, without having any masculinity of her own!

Mary produced neither God's soul, nor His spirit, nor His divinity. Yet Mary is still truly the mother of her son, who is God. Mary is also the mother of a divine person, without having any divinity of her own !

The simple truth is that Jesus is a person who is God in every verse in the Bible that mentions Jesus. Even in John 2:1 !

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Great conversations from "Heresy Hunters" forum:

Grizzard >> I am a staunch Trinitrian-

Dmitri >> Congratulations. I call myself Trinitarian also. By this I mean that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. God is 3 persons (not 1) and God is of 1 substance/essence (not 3).

Jesus is 1 person who is always God (Jesus is not 2 persons, but rather, Jesus is 1 person who has 2 natures).

Since Jesus is 1 person who is both God and man, then everything true about that person is also true of God and is also true of a man.

When Jesus suffered, 1 person suffered, who was God (as well as a man). Thus God suffered (as well as a man suffered).

When Jesus wearied, 1 person wearied, who was God (as well as a man). Thus God wearied (as well as a man wearied).

When Jesus hungered, 1 person hungered, who was God (as well as a man). Thus God hungered(as well as a man hungered).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> but Mary is not the Mother of God -

Dmitri >> Christ was indeed God when Mary conceived and bore Him. The person who Mary conceived and bore is indeed God (as well as a man).

"Mother of God" is a statement of who Jesus was when His mother conceived and bore him.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> that is strictly catholic error-

Dmitri >> "Catholic" is a greek word meaning "whole" or "entire". The whole church agreed in ancient times that Jesus was God when His mother conceived and bore him.

Orthodox Christians as well as Romanist Christians still adhere to this ancient teaching. Some Evangelical Christians do too.

Even Martin Luther taught that Jesus was God when His mother conceived and bore him, for Martin Luther taught that Mary is the Mother of God.

Thus Mary's divine materinity is also a Lutheran teaching.

Many Episcopilians believe this too.

Even some Calvinists believe this.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Mary was the mother of Jesus- the Son of God -

Dmitri >> Mary is the mother of 1 person who is both God and man. In the incarnation of Christ, God and man are united in 1 person (not 2 persons). God and man are not disunited in Christ, or talked about separately in the Incarnation of Christ. Thus Mary is truly the mother of God (as well as truly the mother of a man).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Mary holds no special place other than mother-

Dmitri >> "Mother of God" is a statement of who Jesus was when His mother conceived and bore him. When Jesus was conceived & born by His mother. Jesus was God (as well as human). Mary is the mother of God (as well as the mother of a human).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> God was from the beginning with no point of time of being created- therefore Mary could not have been His mother-

Dmitri >> Of course Mary did not "create" God !

No mother ever "created" her son!

Grizzard's own mother did not create Grizzard !

What mothers actually do is conceive and bear sons, which means to transfer her flesh to another person in the process of childbirth. Mary did this for God. Mary gave her flesh to God so that God could be incarnate.

In the incarnation of Christ, God truly made Mary into his mother, God truly joined Himself unto the family of Adam, and truly became one of our relatives, all the while still remaining God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Before Jesus was Jesus - Grizzard >> He was the Word- Grizzard >> So Jesus did not become- or "became flesh" the Son til his incarnation

Dmitri >> Jesus is 1 person who was God before, during, and after his conception by His Mother.

Thus the person who Mary conceived and bore was God (as well as human).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> So I totally disagree with the bottom line of your analogy-

Dmitri >> My bottom line was that Mary did for God what every mother does for her son - Mary carried around in her womb a person who was God for ~9 months, and she gave her flesh to that person so He could be added to the family of Adam.

My bottom line is based on the definition of "what a mother does" for her son.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Mary is not the Mother of God - she is not old enough.

Dmitri >> The person who Mary conceived and bore is indeed older than Mary.

Jesus is a person who is indeed older than Mary.

And yet the Bible still calls her "the mother of Him".

Since the Bible calls her the mother of a person, and since that person was older than her, it then follows that either (1) Grizzard errs in claiming that no mother is older than the person who is her son, or (2) the Bible errs for calling her the mother of a person who is older than her.

My bottom line is based on the definition of "what a mother does" for her son, not "who is older" ?

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> I still maintain Jesus was not the Incarnate Son til He was born- The Son is an incarnational term.

Dmitri >> I still maintain Jesus was God before, during, & after the time He was born of His mother's womb.

Mothers conceive & bear persons.

Mothers do not conceive & bear "terms".

The person who Mary conceived & bore was a divine person.

The person who Mary conceived & bore was God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> So I ask again is Mary the mother of God - whom would be the Triune God- or the Son of God - which the Holy Spirit planted the seed in her womb.

Dmitri >> Definition of motherhood: A mother is one who gives her flesh and blood to another person in the process of conception & birth.

Question: Did Mary give her flesh and blood to a person who was divine in the process of conception & birth?

Answer: Yes, Mary gave her flesh and blood to a person who was divine, in the process of conception & birth. (The same person was also human.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> I have a great respect for the Reformers, Lutherians, etc. but they still have a lot of baggage left over from their assoc. with the RC church. , , , the Christian community is full of heresey especially today.

Dmitri >> The biggest heresy today is one that is largely unrecoginzed: Nestorianism. Today, tens of millions of crypto-Nestorian heretics go around teaching that Jesus is not always God in every verse of the New Testament, or that Jesus is not always a divine person in every verse of the New Testament.

The truth is that Jesus is God in every verse of the New Testament, even in those that say:

1. Jesus hungered-------------->(God hungered)
2. Jesus thirsted---------------->(God thirsted)
3. Jesus wearied--------------->(God wearied)
4. Jesus suffered--------------->(God suffered)
5. Jesus died ------------------->(God died)
6. Jesus was born of a womb->(God was born of a womb)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> If you want to say Mary was the mother of Jesus, thats acceptable, but you hasve direct declaration from Scripture to support your statement. Please quote chapter and verse.

Dmitri >> I have to quote chapter & verse to demonstrate that Jesus is always God, even in John 2:1 ?

Which of the following statements are false statements ?

1. Mary's Son was a divine person at the time she bore Him.
2. Mary's Son was God at the time she bore Him.
3. Mary is the mother of her Son.
4. Mary is the mother of a person who is a divine person.
5. Mary is the mother of a person who is God.

Answer: all are true!

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> By saying this I am not denying the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or any other basic fundamental doctrine from the Word of God.

Dmitri >> If my claims are to be rejected, then reject them by explaining how they are false. I seek to embrace all truths of Christ simply because they are true. I do not differentiate between "basic" truths of Christ and "non-basic" truths of christ, for that sets me up to reject some truths of Christ. In rejecting some truths of Christ (because they are supposedly "non-basic" or "nonfundamental") I would only end up embracing a falsehood of Christ.

So I maintain that Mary's Son was a divine person at the time she conceived & bore Him simply because it is true. Christ was God for His entire life, from His mother's womb to His orrowed tomb.

(Mary's womb was the womb of a divine person.)
(Mary's womb was the womb of God.)
(The garden tomb was the tomb of a divine person.)
(The garden tomb was the tomb of God.)

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Any idea or statement must supported Scripturally, not with philosophy (1 cor 2:1-5) wisdom of words, as Paul would say. Thats where we as men get into trouble, or own reasoning is flawed, all knowledge of God must be taken from and infallible source the Scriptures.

Dmitri >> It is by "philosophy and vain deceit" that doubters come up with ways to deny that Jesus is always God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Grizzard >> Tolerance is good if it doesn't matter what you believe. But it still does not change the fact of Mother of God being a error of statement.

Dmitri >> If the person who Mary conceived & bore was not God, then Mary is the mother of a mere man, that is, Christ was a mere man at the time His mother conceived & bore Him. That is exactly what the ancient heretic Nestorios taught. Nestorios taught that Jesus was born a merely human person, and later on in life became united to another person called "Logos" who had been eternally divine. Simply put, Nestorios taught that Christ was only sometimes God, not always God.

If the person who Mary conceived & bore was not God, then Mary is the mother of a mere man, that is, Christ was a mere man at the time His mother conceived & bore Him. Then Christ was only sometimes God, not always God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Another conversation, from "A place to learn & share" (sigdir=hereheis) :

Angel L. >> I feel that the intended idea of your post was lost on me?

Dmitri >> I intended to discuss some implications of the Orthodox Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Those implications include but are not limited to:

1. God hungered
2. God wearied
3. God suffered
4. God died
5. God was born of His mother

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L.>> Were you trying to prove that Jesus is God, or the Mary is divine because she bore Him?

Dmitri >> I was presuming that the reader accepts that Jesus is always God. If so, then the reader ought to also accept that:

1. God hungered
2. God wearied
3. God suffered
4. God died
5. God was born of His mother

If the reader objects to these, then the reader ought to explain how Jesus can always be God and yet God experienced none of these.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L.>> If Mary is the Mother of God, being that she bore Him out of her body, then she is human like any other mother and is only a mother, like any other mother.

Dmitri >> Mary is indeed human. Mary is indeed NOT innately divine.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:9 KJV

If you accept that this was true of Jesus for His entire life, from the womb to the tomb, then since Jesus dwelt bodily in His mother's womb, then it is a true statement that:

"For in Mary dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Even though she remained human her whole life.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L. >> I don't extend to her my worship.

Dmitri >> The word "worship" is not to be found in my original post. Neither is the word "hate".

I will not suggest that those who doubt Jesus' eternal divinity of being Jesus-haters or Mary-haters.

Accepting that Jesus is always God (even in John 2:1) does not call for the worship of His mother.

Accepting that Pontius Pilate put God to death does not call for the worship of Pilate as some supposedly greater person.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L.>> I don't believe that her "motherhood" gave her any divine position in the heavens.

Dmitri >> "Mother of God" is a statement of who Jesus was when His mother conceived and bore Him. When Mary conceived and bore Jesus, Jesus was God. Jesus is always God, even in John 2:1.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L.>> By that I mean that she is not to be the focus of our worship and praise.

Dmitri >> The incarnation of Christ is the focus of my faith. Since I believe that Jesus is always truly God, I then conclude that:

1. God hungered
2. God wearied
3. God suffered
4. God died
5. God was born of His mother

In the incarnation of Christ, God joined the family of Adam, and truly became one of our relatives.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Angel L.>> I fear that it becomes dangerous for us to esteem her as more than a wonderful and obedient follower of God.

Dmitri >> If everything I have said is true, then what danger can there be ?

Can the truth be dangerous ?

If I ought to abandon any of what I have said, I will do so because it was shown that what I wrote was false.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

A discussion with a disenter from "Intelligent Christian" forum:

Carlos >> This statement is an herejy!

Dmitri >> ???

Mary's son is a person who is truly God. (Mary's son is a person who is truly human also). That is not heresy. It is nothing less than Orthodox Christian truth.

If Carlos teaches that Mary's son was a person who was merely human, then Carlos ought to say so.

1. Who is Mary's son, according to Carlos?
2. Is Mary the mother of her Son ?

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Carlos >> God exists since the beginning.
Carlos >> Jesus exists since the beginning.
Carlos >> The Holy Spiriti exists since the beginning.

Dmitri >> Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

The Father is a person who existed before Mary existed.
Jesus is a person who existed before Mary existed.
The Spirit is a person who existed before Mary existed.

The Father is a person who has always been divine.
The Father is a person who has always been God.
Mary is not the mother of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is a person who has always been divine.
The Holy Spirit is a person who has always been God.
Mary is not the mother of the Spirit.

Jesus is a person who has always been divine.
Jesus is a person who has always been God.
Mary is the mother of a person who has always been God.
Thus Mary is truly the mother of God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Carlos >> God have no beginning no end. Exists since eternity.

Dmitri >> Agreed. Agreed. God has no beginning, and God is 3 persons who have existed since eternity. Mary began to exist later. Mary's Son is a person who existed before Mary.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Carlos >> MARY HAS A BEGINNING AND HAS AN END. DOESN'T EXIST FROM THE BEGINNING.

Dmitri >> Agreed.

Mary is a person who was born.
Mary is a person who departed.

Mary is a person who was born before Jesus was born.

Her Son is a person who existed before Mary was born.

Her Son is a person who existed before Mary existed.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Carlos >> SO SHE IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD, BUT THE MOTHER OF JESUS IN HIS HUMAN NATURE, NOT IN HIS DIVINE NATURE.

Dmitri >> Then , , ,

Mary is the mother of God precisely because Mary is the mother of God in His human form.

Sarah is the mother of Isaac precisely because Sarah is the mother of Isaac in his human form.

Rebekka is the mother of Jacob precisely because Rebekka is the mother of Jacob in his human form.

Rachel is the mother of Joseph precisely because Rachel is the mother of Joseph in his human form.

Elisabeth is the mother of John the Baptist precisely because Elisabeth is the mother of John the Baptist in his human form.

1. Mothers do not conceive & bear natures.
2. Instead, mothers conceive & bear persons.
3. A mother is the mother of a person.
4. The person whom Mary is the mother of is Jesus.
5. The person whom Mary is the mother of was always divine.
6. The person whom Mary is the mother of was always God.

"Mother of God" is a statement of who Jesus was when His mother conceived and bore him. Jesus was God when His mother conceived and bore him. Jesus was always God, from the womb to the tomb.

Pontius Pilate had Jesus killed.
Pontius Pilate killed a person who was God.
(the same dead person was also a man).
Pontius Pilate is the killer of God.
(the same dead person was also a man).

"Mother of God" is not a statement of how Jesus came into existence, for Jesus existed before His mother conceived and bore him.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Carlos >> Jesus the man, has a beginning and an end.
Carlos >> Jesus as Son of of God has no beginning no end.

Dmitri >> The "man" who had "a beginning and an end" is the same person as the "Son of God". They are the same person.

Jesus is one person, not two different persons.
Jesus has 2 natures(divine & human), not 1 nature
Jesus has always been a divine person.
Jesus has always been God.
Jesus is God in every verse of the New Testament.
Jesus is God even in John 2:1.

Since John 2:1 calls Mary the "mother of Jesus", and Jesus is a person who is God even in that verse of scripture, then Mary is the mother of a person who is God. This means that Mary
gave her flesh to God in the process of conception and birth.

Carlos' own mother is Carlos' mother precisely because that woman gave her flesh to Carlos in the process of conception and birth. That is the definition of "motherhood". Mary meets the definition of "mother of God".

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

A conversation I had elsewhere with another (I forget where):

Stephen >> Sarah, Rebekkah, Rachel etc. conceived the sons, and hence provided them with half their gene pool. Was not Jesus placed in Mary's womb, and therefore Mary carried Jesus,

Dmitri >> "Placed" ?

Christ's flesh was not transplanted into Mary from another previous location.

Isaac received his flesh directly from his mother's womb.
Jacob received his flesh directly from his mother's womb.
Joseph received his flesh directly from his mother's womb.
Baptizer received his flesh directly from his mother's womb.
God received His flesh directly from His mother's womb.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Stephen >> therefore Mary carried Jesus, but she did not conceive the child.

Dmitri >> Twice doth scripture say that Mary conceived!

"And, behold, thou shalt CONCEIVE in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus" Luke 1:31

"his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED in the womb." Luke 2:21

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Stephen >> There was not a conception as we know it, and therefore the motherhood status is a bit shaky.

Dmitri >> Jesus is the fruit of the womb of Mary (Luke 1:42).

Stephen's theory of Jesus' "place"-ment into Mary seem shaky.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Stephen >> we must be very careful when describing her as "The mother of God" that we are not deifying her, turning her into a "god".

Dmitri >> "Mother of God" is a statement of who Jesus was when His mother conceived and bore Him. When Jesus's human mother conceived and bore Him, He was a divine person (He was God). The same person was human too.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Stephen >> Did not God say "I am the first, the last, the ONLY God"

Dmitri >> Isaiah 44:6 does indeed say that.

Jesus said : "Ye are gods" John 10:34

Peter said : "by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4 KJV

Christian believers become deified by acquisition. Persons who are only innately human can "partake" of God's divine nature. In doing so, they acquire a divnine nature while retaining their innately human nature. They are rightfully described by Jesus as "Ye are gods".


+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

A conversation from "Perilous Times" forum:

PreacherJT >> To say that in Mary dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily because she bore Christ after the flesh is some seriously warped logic.

Dmitri >> I would call it a "communicative property".

X bodily dweleth in Y.
Y bodily dweleth in Z. Thus,
X bodily dweleth in Z.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

PreacherJT >> Do you honestly believe that because the Bible says "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." about Jesus that the same status transfers to Mary because she bore Christ after the flesh?

Dmitri >> "status" ? I'm not sure what PreacherJT means by "status".

I would say that Christ's "status" is that He is an eternally divine person who became impregnated into flesh.

I would say that Mary's "status" is that she is a human person who was impregnated with divinity in a special way for a short time. She partook of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) in a most special way not available to any other partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Preacher JT >> Colossians 2:9 is a statement about the nature of Christ.

Dmitri >> Col. 2:9 is a statement affirming that God intimately, personally, and truly, "dweleth" in flesh. This is a refutation of the (then) growing gnostic doctrine that
Christ's Deity was anti-flesh, anti-physical, and not the creater of the kosmos. Paul and John affirm that Christ's Diety dweleth in flesh among us.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Preacher JT >> Do you honestly believe that Mary's nature is equal to His simply because she bore Him after the flesh? I hope not. I find it hard to believe that you honestly draw that conclusion.

Dmitri >> Mary's is innately human.

God (who is innately divine) partook of flesh (human nature) to conquer death (Heb. 2:14) and thus open up the way for man to be united to God. In the incarnation of Christ, God acquired a 2nd nature. Christ is 1 person who is innately divine, and that same person acquired an additional nature, human nature, by partaking of it.

Innately human believers can partake of divine nature (2 Pt. 1:4). A believer is 1 person who is innately human, and that same person can acquire an additional nature, the divine nature, by partaking of it.

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation is complimented by the orthodox doctrine of deification.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that God became human so that man might become divine.

"Ye are gods" John 10:34,35

Deification means divinity by acquisition (2 Pt. 1:4), not an innate divinity.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Jack T. >> I believe we can never understand all that happened the last day before Jesus Christ died on the cross. I look at Matt. 27:46; and see there is separation between Christ and God, the Father. In Luke 23:46, when our Lord and Savior dismisses His spirit, I believe was only His human part, for His God part already had left.

Jack T. >> We know that God cannot have any part of sin. Therefore, He was suffering on the cross as the perfect Man.

Dmitri >> "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, " Hebrews 2:14 NASB

Thus, Jack T's teaching is that "THE DEVIL WAS RENDERED POWERLESS THROUGH THE DEATH OF A MERE 'HUMAN PART' (or some other nondivine being) " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would the Incarnation of the Logos ever take place (Jack T's "God part" joining to Jack T's "human part"), since that union was dissolved before the sacrifice was achieved ?

It seems that in Jack T's theology, the Incarnation (the union of Jack T's "God part" to Jack T's "human part"), simply is not necessary for salvation, since the union was dissolved before the sacrifice occurred !


I think your theology is a bit faulty. We can't run down the Mystery of the Incarnation like a Betty Crocker recipe. In his human nature Christ experienced limitations but God has no limitations like thirst and hunger. We can say the God-Man, Christ, experienced hunger and thirst but I don't think it is accurate to say God experienced hunger and thirst since then He would not be God. The divinely animated human nature of Christ experienced hunger and thirst but God did not. This is part of the Mystery of the Incarnation. Just as we can say, God has no mother, but Mary truly is the Mother of God, by reason of the Mystery of the Incarnation. A Mystery involves the reality of contradictions. Paul


Having my d'ruthers, d'choose dmitri's recipe.

polycarp

Well, clear thinking was never exactly your strong suit, now was it Poly-O! Paul True


Well..... without conceding anything, perhaps SUBTLETY is more my forte.

polycarp

Now, boys....:>)


sorry


polycarp


Wow, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I think it was about this time last year that I returned to CEF after taking a break for a bit, and there was a similar argument going on. Ah well. I've been in the middle of one or two of those myself, I guess.


Thank you Dimitri for your post.

Sadly, those who do not accept Mary as the Mother of God, also do not accept Her as our Mother, the Mother given us by Jesus on the Cross:

John 19:26 ....."When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. "

In Jesus and Mary,
Joseph


I heard something interesting from my landlady 2 nights ago. She said that everything that belongs to Christ belongs to us if we only open up ourselves fully to accept Him and be in His fellowship because God wills that everything He has should be give to us who are His people.
Now, isn't that a surprise! Or should I actually be sad...

My landlady, btw, is a devout member of the pentecostal church and is totally misinformed about the Catholic Church (but I suspect she's becoming a little less misinformed now that I have been speaking up).


If there is a Catholic charismatic mass near you, you ought to invite your landlady to go with you sometime. She would probably feel quite comfortable there.


IF she's willing to go. I have invited her to have a look at Catholic stuff herself firsthand but she says people have told her the errors of the Catholic Church so she's not going to waste her time anymore.

Too bad, so sad


Computer been broke and now I hve to leave again. Glad this place is still hopping.
Theologians have a fancy term "communicatio idomatum" or something such - We can say God suffered and died for us.
Jesus had a true human body and soul and also His Person was a union of His human nature with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. If this is a Betty Crocker Recipe so be it. He had one consciousness because that pertained to the person not to the nature.
Bishop Sheen makes a big "to-do" about this in his sermons i.e. that God knows what we go through because Jesus went through it. This pertains to thirst, suffering, betrayal, etc.
God Bless.


That is what appealed to me about the Good News of the Incarnation when it was first presented to me. I had been raised as a Christian Scientist, taught that God made only good, and therefore "sin, disease, and death" were merely illusions which *God knew nothing about*!!! This God knew so little about the conditions of human life, I felt at the time, that He could certainly not be said to be compassionate, and hence not even "good" in any sense meaningful to human beings. Imagine my joy and gratitude to hear that God not only understands our suffering, but became human in order to share it. (That's when I became a Christian, at that point in the Pentecostal Holiness church. Catholic came later.)


Paul >> In his human nature Christ experienced limitations but
God has no limitations like thirst and hunger. We can say the God-Man, Christ, experienced hunger and thirst but I don't think it is accurate to say God experienced hunger and thirst since then He would not be God.

Dmitri >> I think that you must indeed affirm that God hungered, otherwise, God remains un-incarnate.

A monophysical deity cannot hunger, and a monophysical man cannot be omniscent, but then Christ is not a monophysical being. The Theopaschites of the 6th century AD were correct in affirming that God suffered, the anti-nestorians of the 5th century AD were correct in affirming that God was born of His mother's womb, and Martin Luther was correct in affirming that Christ is an omnipresent man, a human person who is present everywhere.

The dyophysical hypostasis makes such statements possible, strange as they sound.

Christ is a person who suffered.
The same person is God, and He did not cease to be God when He suffered.

Christ is a person who is omni-present.
The same person is a man, and He did not cease to be an omni-present person when He became a man.

The person who thirsted was a divine person.
The person who thirsted did not cease to be a divine person while He was thristing.

Those are statements about "who" it was that thirsted.

Those are not statements about "how" He thirsted.

There is a subltle difference, and I am not confused about it.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Paul >> The divinely animated human nature of Christ experienced hunger and thirst but God did not.

Dmitri >> The person who thirsted & hungered was indeed a divine person, although He did not thirst or hunger because of His divinity. Jaimster4 seems to confuse statements about "who" it was who hungered with statements about "how" He hungered & thirsted.

Baptists confuse "Mother of God" with "Goddess Mother"
Jehovah's Wittnesses confuse "Trinity" with "Tritheism".

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Paul >> This is part of the Mystery of the Incarnation. Just as we can say, God has no mother, but Mary truly is the Mother of God, by reason of the Mystery of the Incarnation.

Dmitri >> God has no creator, but then mothers do not create their sons. In the incarnation of Christ, God truly made Mary into His mother. He acquired a body of flesh from a woman just like every other son.


Conversation from "Heresy Hunters Forum"

Ichthys >> There is a somewhat glaring breakdown in your logic. See if this syllogism follows:

1.If Jesus is truly God
2.And if Jesus was truly tempted at all points as we are
3.Then God was truly tempted at all points as we are.

Whereas this is formally correct, it is actually quite false. The Bible makes it painfully clear that God cannot be tempted.

Dmitri >> God does not SUCCUMB to temptation.

Jesus did not cease to be God when Jesus was EXPOSED to temptation. Thus a person who was God was indeed exposed, and He did not succumb.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Dmitri >> As to what you consider to be "plain" and "clear" is mostly just your own opinion.

Some favorite proof texts which heretics say "plainly" teach that Jesus "clearly" cannot be both a man and God:

1. God is not a man. Hosea 11:9
2. God is not a son of man. Numbers 23:19
3. Trust not a son of man. Ps. 146:3
4. God is not a man. 1 Sam. 15:29

Here is one particularly interesting:

"God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?"
Isaiah 40:28 NIV

"Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well"
John 4:6 KJV

The first passage is true because God had not yet acquired a human nature. Yet Jesus was still God in the 2nd passage and yet He wearied.

Jesus is a divine person who wearied.
Jesus did not cease to be God when He wearied.

Does Ixthys believe that Jesus is a person who wearied ?

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> Here's another one for you to chew on:

1.If Jesus is truly God
2.And God forsook Him during the crucifixion
3.Then God forsook God during the crucifixion.

Ixthys >> Again, formally correct, but actually false.

Dmitri >> It could actually be correct.

If each of the 3 divine persons is properly called God, and if one divine person forsook another divine person, then God would be forsaking God.

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. If the Father forsook the Son, then God forsook God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> And here's another:

1.If Jesus is truly God
2.And Jesus "grew in stature and wisdom"
3.Then God grew in stature and wisdom.

Ixthys >> Need I repeat myself? This is also actually false.

Dmitri >> It is actually true.

The person who grew in stature and wisdom was God.
The person who grew in stature and wisdom was a divine person.

Only 1 person grew in stature and wisdom, and that 1 person had always been God and did not cease to be God when He grew in stature and wisdom.

The alternative is: The person who grew in stature and wisdom was not God. Thus the alternative is that Christ was not a divine person while He was growing in stature and wisdom. The alternative is unacceptable, of course.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> God is perfect and immutable, and cannot therefore "grow" in anything.

Dmitri >> In the incarnation of Christ, a divine person acquired a human nature. When God acquired a human nature, God acquired the ability to grow. In the Incarnation, the Son became more than He had previously been. The alternative is that the Son had always posessed humanity, which is unacceptable, of course.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> How about this one:

1.If Jesus is truly God
2.And Jesus did not know the day nor hour of His return
3.Then God did not know the day nor hour of His return.

Are you seeing a pattern develop here?

Dmitri >> Oh yes, I do indeed see a pattern. The pattern is a complete abscence of statements about "persons", which creates the opportunity for confusing persons with natures.

Saint Gregory the Great said that the Son does not know the time of His return, because He does not wish to know it.

(Soverignity trumps omniscence. Otherwise, the Son would know some things against His own will !!!!!! )

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> In correctly rejecting Nestorianism, you wholeheartedly embrace the heresy of Eutychianism.

Dmitri >> On 3 occasions I have made it clear I do not embrace the monophysite heresey:

Message #47: Jesus is 1 person who is always God (Jesus is not 2 persons, but rather, Jesus is 1 person who has 2 natures).

Message #85: Jesus has 2 natures(divine & human), not 1 nature

Message #115: The Son is 1 person, not 2, and the Son has 2 natures, not 1.

I accept Ixthys' apology for his/her false accusation against me.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> The facts are, instead, these: Jesus is God.

Dmitri >> Quite right. Jesus is a person who is divine.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> He is One Eternal Person , , , Who has two unmingled and mutually exclusive Natures. These two Natures, while being eternally and inextricably enjoined into the One Person of Christ, and while they are perfectly cohesive, are not commingled.

Dmitri >> Just as I said 3 times earlier in messaes #47, #85 & #115.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> What is true for the one nature is not necessarily true for the other

Dmitri >> I have not been writing about "what is true for a nature".

Instead, I have been writing about "what is true for a person".

1a. Natures do not thirst.
1b. Persons thirst.
1c. Christ is a person who thirsted.

2a. Natures do not hunger.
2b. Persons hunger.
2c. Christ is a person who hungered.

3a. Natures do not weary.
3b. Persons weary.
3c. Christ is a person who wearied.

4a. Natures do not suffer.
4b. Persons suffer.
4c. Christ is a person who suffered.

5a. Natures do not die. (They do not live either)
5b. Persons die.
5c. Christ is a person who died.

6a. Natures are neither conceived nor born.
6b. Persons are conceived & born.
6c. Christ is a person who was conceived & born.

Which of those does Ixthys not agree with ?

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> This is not, incidentally, an alien nor difficult concept to grasp, since it is true of ourselves as redeemed humans, also. Note that:

1. As Christians, we are justified, and are positionally saints, as spotless in a forensic sense as He is

2. Yet we remain in practice sinners [I John 1:8-9]; we are not actually holy as He is holy.

Dmitri >> A person who uses an identification card saying that he is one person, when in reality he is another person, is normally called a "fraud". Many teenagers attempt to purchace adult products with ID cards saying that they are 21 years old. If the store owner were the one issuing these false certificates, then he is a fraud too.

The strangest description of salvation I ever heard was from a Baptist who planned on getting into heaven wearing a disguise. He claimed that Heaven only admitts souls who wore spotless garments, and that Jesus is the one who issues such disguises to dirty souls. That guy's Jesus did not actually cleanse sinners of their stains, but merely masked them! That guy's Heaven will be one big Halloween Masquerade, with everyone pretending to be someone that they are not!

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> It is hypersimplistic to insist that Jesus' since two Natures are completely contained within One Person, therefore what is true for one Nature is true for the other;

Dmitri >> A moot point, since I have not claimed that "what is true of one nature is true for the other".

Instead, I have been writing about "what is true of the person".

1. Christ is a person who thirsted.
2. Christ is a person who hungered.
3. Christ is a person who wearied.
4. Christ is a person who suffered.
5. Christ is a person who died.
6. Christ is a person who was conceived & born.

All these experiences were experienced by one person who was truly God (and truly man).

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> Rather, we must simply state what Scripture states, and not go beyond it.

Dmitri >> First Ixthys writes about:

1. "unmingled and mutually exclusive Natures"

2. "two Natures, while being eternally and inextricably enjoined into the One Person"

3. "they are perfectly cohesive, are not commingled"

then later Ixthys endorses not to going beyond scripture !

Some of the heretic hunters at this sight might dispute Ixthys's claim that he did not "go beyong scripture" with such comments !

The truth is that such comments are no more beyond scripture (or just as much beyond scripture?) as are my own comments that:

1. Pontius Pilate put to death a person who is God, and
2. Mary conceived & gave birth to a person who is God.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> We must affirm what it affirms, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. The Word of God is not adjustible.

Dmitri >> The Word of God says:

1. Christ is a person who thirsted.
2. Christ is a person who hungered.
3. Christ is a person who wearied.
4. Christ is a person who suffered.
5. Christ is a person who died.
6. Christ is a person who was conceived & born.

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> By your use of the technical term Theotokos, the Evangelical's objection comes , , ,

Dmitri >> As authorities as to what Evangelicals agree to or object to, I cite Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and Jean Calvin, leading fathers of the Evangelical tradition:

"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God."
(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary ...; Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."
(Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

Jean Calvin:
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Dmitri >> Perhaps all the heretic hunters at this sight ought to start conversations on Luther, Zwingli, & Calvin along with favorite targets Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Watchman Nee, Tony Campolo, et al.?

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> By your use of the technical term Theotokos, the Evangelical's objection comes not from the affirmation that Mary gave birth to a Divine Person, but rather the elevation of Mary beyond what she was to a position of at least perceived equality (or even proximity) with God.

Dmitri >> By your rejection of the technical term Theotokos, the Orthodox objection comes from either (1) the perceived rejection of Christ's divinity and/or (2) ther perceived rejection of the singularity/unity of Christ's person.

If you don't believe that:

"Pontius Pilate put to death a person who is God"
"Mary is the mother of a person who is God"

then the alternative is that you believe that:

"Pontius Pilate put to death a person who is not God"
"Mary is the mother of a person who is not God"

+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Ixthys >> In that sense, she is not the "God-Bearer." She is the Mother of Jesus, but she is not the mother of His Deity; she is not the progenitor of His Eternality, His Omniscience, His Omnipotence, etc.

Dmitri >> As I have written above, there are many things that Mary is NOT the mother of:

Mary is not the mother of His masculinity.
Yet Mary is the mother of a male person.
(No mother ever gave her son his maleness! )

Mary is not the mother of Jesus's divinity.
Yet Mary is the mother of a divine person.
Mary is the mother of God.


Go back to the Mary Apologetics Page.